Tuesday, November 18, 2014

35mm out of date Ektachrome framefrom an Olympus Trip 35 with a fungus-damaged lens.
November 2003

Interview: with Gerry Kass 03.12.06

GK

Technically; what are these images made from? (the water pictures on the old website)

JQ:

The series is very conventional --traditional
photographs made with cameras, lenses and film. I used a variety of cameras.
Everything from expensive antiques to two dollar toys with plastic
lenses --point and shoot cameras as well. I also use a wide range of films. Out
of date or end of stock. Sometimes I leave a roll of film on the
radiator. I've destroyed several cameras in the water while squeaking out one
last roll. Its one big experiment. Maybe in that sense this series is not so
typical.

GK

But there is a computer involved?

JQ

I bring them into the computer after development for minor
adjustments with color, contrast etceteras but out of this series I think I've
cropped maybe one or two and even then just to straighten out the angle.
Generally, I don't crop. The image corrections are very minimal --if at all. I
edit out a lot of shots that don't quite please me. Whats on the film is what
you are looking at on your screen.

GK

Why not just shoot digital?

JQ

Yes I do shoot digital, but not this (2003-6) series. The relationship
between the way film interacts with light as it travels through a lens; the
subject matter (fluid water in natural states of motion) lends itself
nicely to the relationship and understanding we have with how an image is
formed. Well, at least I think so.

GK

What do you mean by relationship?

JQ

There are plenty of people that could explain the technical better
than me but we are on a cusp. Issues for traditional photography like the way
light refracts, film grain and so forth are such a part of the language of
photography but it is not simply evolving. In favor of clarity, much of these
elements have disappeared and are disappearing. I should say that for the sake
of clarity, the idiosyncrasies of film are all but gone. Film will soon be
over. There will be a story in the news. Kodak (et al) will stop supplying
film but water and foam, light and air will always form up to the speed of cognition.

GK

Ludite?

JQ

I hope not. I love digital, it has profoundly changed the image
making practice. Have you ever seen so many people making pictures? It seems
like everywhere I go I see a digital camera in use. The function of
photographic image-making as a cultural practice is (once again) being
redefined. I too am marveling at this evolving form. Maybe this series is (in
part) a celebration of this film-endgame we are in.

GK

Im trying to understand your rule book.

JQ

If there is a
discernible process it relates to ideas about the ability to evoke emotion. But there are interesting issues I am attempting
to exploit regarding that process and this waning era of a dark box, glass,
chemical and paper. There is an emotional component to this. Wait, maybe I mean romance.

GK

When did this begin?

JQ

Heres the confession. I was taking these kinds of pictures long
before digital. That is close ups of water creating abstractions. really its
the same picture over and over. I even spent some time trying to paint this
kind of image and I imagine I will return to it. Pictures aren't photos and paintings aren't pictures.

GK

So the technique is just a part of the story.

JQ

I hope a small one, I would hope the pictures themselves transcend
any formula regarding the process or relation the process has in time. The
photographs are pictures. What you see is what you get.

GK

So then, influences.

JQ

For this series? Two painters: Arthur Dove and Marsden Hartley. My interests here are
about exploring early definitions of modern pictorial abstraction. How
pictorially, light and shadow organize themselves in an organic way --obeying
physical properties-- that sort of thing.

GK

Where is your commitment towards this (as you call it) practice as a
convention for yourself.

JQ

I am butting up against a wall. Two walls really that do make me a
little uncomfortable. First, as I am exploring convention; some of this work
could fall into stock images. Context and authorship becomes the a driving explanation. If I attempt to make art that can’t be
confused as art I am again relying on a context to define the work. It is an
interesting conundrum. Second, image making practice is fully engaged in
virtual, digital method. Any one of my pictures could have been built from
pixels bypassing anything to do with freezing light and time with a camera.
This idea extended out from image making long ago. Take for example a fake
Rolex verses a digital reconstruction of a film based photograph there
are interesting mimetic cross-hairs going on here. Or, at least I hope.